Now, the law doesn’t require them to divulge exactly who their donors are – which is kind of a weaselly out for a group that wants government to limit and regulate your First Amendment right to political speech.

At any rate, yesterday they released word that they were going to file a complaint against a series of Minnesota political action committees (PACs) that were playing a shell game with third-party donations, trying to make accountability difficult.

And given how hard Common Cause has been proclaiming their ecumenicism and non-partisan mission, I thought “Halleluiah! They’re going to do something about the epic three-card monte game the Dayton campaign has going on!”

As we discussed last June, the Dayton campaign was being supported by a huge ad campaign from a group called “Alliance for a Better Minnesota”. At that time, ABM’s funding came from a bunch of unions, and a group called “Win Minnesota”, which was largely funded by…the Dayton family; as of last June, the list was…:

Win Minnesota also funded a group which at the time had no name, but which shared an address with Win Minnesota, which has since been named “The 2010 Fund”. 2010 of last June had about $850K in the bank, including money from:

Common Cause Minnesota has uncovered a scheme by the Minnesota’s Future political committee and the Republican Governors Association (RGA) to avoid Minnesota’s original source disclosure law by funneling a $428,000 contribution from the RGA to Minnesota’s Future through a shell company. The company, Minnesota Future, LLC was created just days before it received the contribution from the RGA and immediately transferred the funds to the Minnesota’s Future political committee.

Today, three separate complaints were filed with the Minnesota Campaign Finance Disclosure Board against Minnesota’s Future, Minnesota Future, LLC, and the RGA. The complaints allege that the three groups together violated multiple state statutes ranging from circumvention of campaign finance laws, failing to register as a political committee, and failing to report receipts and expenditures. The three entities could face $5.1 million in civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

“This was a brazen attempt to circumvent Minnesota’s disclosure law,” said Mike Dean, Executive Director of Common Cause Minnesota. “The public has a right to know what special interests are behind political ads, especially during a hotly contested election.”

So the public has a “right to know” the money behind “Minnesota’s Future” from the Republican Governors Association…

…but the multiple millions of dollars from the Dayton Family, the unions, and the Democratic Governors Assocication which financed the most vile smear campaign in the history of Minnesota politics (under the cover of a phony grass-roots organization funded by the Dayton family!) isn’t something “the public” needs to know about?

I’ve invited a representative of Common Cause to come on the Northern Alliance tomorrow to discuss what would be brazen hypocrisy from a genuinely “non-partisan” organization.

15 thoughts on “Common Shills”

I’ll be ready to jump on your band wagon re Common Cause, when you take the same position about revealing their doners / contributors to right wing groups that act to influence politics, while claiming not to be partisan.

Seems to me I just read about a case where the Minnesota Taxpayer’s League just lost in a court case ruling over transparency….

For the record, I’d like to see everyone, whatever their political ideology, have to make their doners public, including all PACs.

What you call limiting free speech Mitch is too often about big money and big corporations drowning out the legitimate voice of individuals. More bigbucks trying to buy up free speech, so to speak.

I have consistently maintained that I would like to see outside interests not dominate or powerfully influence Minnesota politics – for anyone, any party, any viewpoint. Seems you and the majority of commenters are really quiet on that point.

I would also like to see limits on the donations made by groups and corporations. Corporations-or groups like unions – are not people. The net effect is that their ‘free speech’ through larger donations diminishes the value of individuals who are not corporate level wealthy. What you call Free Speech means that wealthy individuals like the Koch brothers – for an example on the right – can make additional donations they control through the what 70+? companies they own, as ‘additional pockets’ for their personal views, and as additional puppets for those views as if they were another 70+ people.

Our process of government, in the guise of free speech, should not be up for auction to rich individuals, to corporations OR TO UNIONS, or to special interest groups. They have plenty of influence on those processes of government already, through lobbying.

Yea, DG, good luck with limiting George Soros in contributing to the left nuts, via his myriad of shell organizations! He makes millions per year, but because he does support left wing and/or socialist causes, that’s OK.

Sorry, but the hypocrisy in most of these right/left debates, is from the left.

Our process of government, in the guise of free speech, should not be up for auction to rich individuals, to corporations OR TO UNIONS, or to special interest groups. They have plenty of influence on those processes of government already, through lobbying.

Seems to me that the Unions take money from membership dues and make their contributions to individual candidates and causes. And from what I understand that is done regardless of whether an individual member objects or not. We’re talking tons and tons of money. But to have a Corporation/employeer contribute as they see fit is somehow…unsavory…… HYPOCRITS!!!!

But I’ll offer this as a bit of constructive criticism; you and Penigma both do a lot of arguing using the logical fallacy known as the “Red Herring” – which is sort of like a non-sequitur, except on the input rather than the output side of the argument.

Pen did a classic one on your blog a month or so (?) ago; “conservatives argue against spending billions building high-speed rail to Duluth; why weren’t they arguing against spending billions in Iraq?” The two are utterly unrelated (unless the actual subject of the debate is “wasteful spending in general”, which is was not).

So when you say “I’ll care about [something], when you care about [some unrelated thing]”, it’s hard to argue, not because it’s an airtight case, but because it’s really illogical, in the context of an argument about campaign finance disclosure rules.

“But wait!”, you might respond, “isn’t that what your post is?” But you’d be wrong. Common Cause is complaining about contributions to a GOP organization, but silent about the vastly larger abuses of the same precise rules and process by the DFL.

Not, for example, George Soros’ contributions to the “Minnesota Independent’s” parent organization. Similar issue, but not the same issue.

Common Cause may be partisan complaining, but you do the same thing you accuse them of doing. I would join your outrage if you complained more even-handedly. Not doing so is just partisan sniping, imho, not genuine outrage. Recent post title of mine fits here; Right or Left, Wrong is Wrong.

I object as much to Soros money as to Koch brothers money dominating elections. During the Franken/Coleman election controversy I objected to the money rolling in from outside MN for both sides, not just one side.

I am not Pen. If you want to object to something I write, you know where to find me, either by personal private email or open comment. In fact, I just sent you an email attempting to fact check something, in case you read SitD before you see it in your inbox. I’m always pleased to hear from you through either one. I would suggest to you that Pen argued that conservatives were picking poor things about which to object, and that he felt at the same time ignoring things they should question. Not therefore a red herring.

but NOT only to Rove’s PAC, but to every PAC, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, right, left, center, that does this.

No, Mr. D. NOT shut up. The opposite; I don’t want to see individuals, on the basis of donations, rendered silent by big money. I want those groups, including corporations and unions, to have free speech, just not more free speech than anyone else, rendering individuals effectively mute.

It’s “We the People”, not We the People, Corporations, Unions, Special Interest groups…

In reality, dues rise during election cycles so that the union can further screw the members in making those contributions. We know that the only union pukes that benefit from liberats are at the executive levels. As you pointed out, the rank and file schmuck doesn’t matter!

Dog Gone, you are a silly person.
Mitch is a partisan. He is open about being a partisan, both on this blog and on his radio appearances. As a partisan, it is his job to present a partisan argument. Not a wrong argument, a partisan argument.Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to restoring the core values of American democracy, reinventing an open, honest and accountable government that serves the public interest, and empowering ordinary people to make their voices heard in the political process.
That is taken from Common Cause’s home page, http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4741359

No, Mr. D. NOT shut up. The opposite; I don’t want to see individuals, on the basis of donations, rendered silent by big money. I want those groups, including corporations and unions, to have free speech, just not more free speech than anyone else, rendering individuals effectively mute.

That’s silly as hell. You can’t modulate how much speech a person has without muffling it. I’m an amateur pundit/blogger with a small readership. Is it fair that Lori Sturdevant, an ostensibly professional journalist with a weekly column in a metropolitan daily, has a larger megaphone than I do? Should we take away her megaphone to make it more fair for me? Surely you understand what it would take to do that.

Even if the Koch brothers had all the money in the world, you’ll win the debate if your side has the better argument. So make your argument and see what happens.

A union represents the financial interests of its members. A corporation represents the financial interests of its investors. If the state takes sides with one of these factions, constitutional government is in peril. Read Federalist #10, for God’s sake.